04 Latest News

cuz u run for the door when u should of waited and turned up with no shoes or socks on

Maurice, this idea may make you feel better but it may be wise not to act yet as you have too many cases at once. The General Medical Council (GMC) cannot release the medical notes to you, but the GMC has authority to look at anyone's medical records to assess for potential misconduct.

The GMC can access your records to see whether Dr Tegwyn Williams shows unfairness or more unfairness compared to other professionals and to assess why Dr Williams wished to section you when other doctors said you were OK. It may be the opinion of some people that Dr WiIliams has gone about matters in a high handed way, or maliciously in not releasing your records which is in breach of GMC rules.

Dr Williams should write facts in a medical report and then assess those facts, but he seems to be writing the prosecution case in his medical assessment for the court, to improperly present you as a 'man with a machine gun' and guilty, as opposed to objective description of an antique aeroplane gun and litte risk from that or you.

If you list what you feel Dr Williams has done wrong, the GMC can look at the notes.

But a word of caution is that usually the GMC looks for a trend of problems not one off, and the GMC prefers a complaint to be supported by a either a clinician or manager of a care facility.  

what an idiot!!!!!!!!!!

just can't leave it alone, don't you know when you've won.

Caswell just as easily dealt with by letter with cc to MP & CQC, amongst others.

But no has to give those in power a 2nd bite of the chrerry, another opportunity to abuse process.

Deserve all you get.

Would have been better still to take out a county court summons on them and see if they like the threat of bailiffs.

All to easy for those on the outside to condemn the actions of the ones living the reality, no?

Chump, Maurice has to do what is right for him to do, no matter if that seems sensible to others or not. This is HIS time on the planet and, as a sovereign being, he gets to call his own shots.

It's for his friends, family, supporters and those who generally empathise with him to continue to offer support to a fellow human being even when (or especially when!!) their actions confuse or confound us.

Much love and respect to you Maurice Kirk. - You're not the only one I know who doesn't have an 'off switch'. I wont condemn you for that.

Have you heard of the plight of Robert Green (a man attempting to expose a paedophile ring in Aberdeen, arrested for his troubles)? - If you wonder why things are a little quiet in here just now, I think the answer may lie there. - Many people are currently seeking justice for him and for the family he's being trying to help.

Peace, love, unity.

Kazz. xxx

This is such fun, said the Mad Hatter, yet another poor sod screwing with the Jewdiciary in yet another way!

Panel Dismisses Privacy Claim Brought

by Justice Satirized by Artist as Demon

By John Caher

New York Law Journal

February 10, 2003

An appellate panel in Albany last week partially reversed one of its own judges in a peculiar case involving a mid-Hudson artist who satirized a local town justice as a horned devil.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, said the newest member of the court, Justice Anthony T. Kane, erred by preserving the town judge's privacy claim against the artist. However, the Third Department said Justice Kane properly cited the artist for criminal contempt for violating an injunction that should not have even been in effect.

Altbach v. Kulon, 92378, arises out of a dispute between the town judge in Liberty, Sullivan County, and a local artist. Artist Franciszek C. Kulon was arrested in 1998 and charged with possessing a stolen gun. Liberty Town Justice Jeffrey S. Altbach, filling in for the town judge in Neversink, set bail as recommended by the prosecutor. Later, the case was dismissed.

Kulon then caricatured Justice Altbach as a goat-hoofed, horned demon with a tail. To promote the opening of his art gallery, Kulon distributed flyers displaying his oil painting of Justice Altbach. The flyers included a small reproduction of a photograph of Justice Altbach that appeared in a yellow page advertisement for his law practice.

Justice Altbach sued Kulon for defamation and obtained an injunction barring Kulon from displaying or distributing the painting or any depiction of the judge while the case was pending. Justice Kane, then a trial judge in Sullivan County, dismissed the defamation claim, but allowed the town judge to amend his complaint to add a privacy cause of action under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The injunction remained in effect.

Early last year, Kulon violated the preliminary injunction and promoted his painting on the Internet. He also posed with his artwork for a picture in the local newspaper. Justice Kane imposed a fine of $3,850 for civil contempt and $500 for criminal contempt.

Caricature and Parody

In its decision last week, the Third Department justices said their colleague should have dismissed Justice Altbach's privacy-based Civil Rights Law claims. The appeals panel said that the painting itself, as Justice Kane found, was clearly "a caricature and parody of [Justice Altbach] in his public role" and protected under the First Amendment, and was excepted from the privacy provisions in state law. However, the panel also said that Kulon's use of the photograph was "part and parcel of the parody," and therefore similarly protected even though the town judge's name and likeness was used without permission to promote the artist's enterprise.

Although the Third Department said Justice Kane should have dismissed the privacy claim and vacated the preliminary injunction, it pointed out that there was an injunction in place and Kulon violated the court order.

"There can be no dispute that defendant's conduct in publicizing the painting violated the original injunction," Justice Robert S. Rose wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Thomas E. Mercure, Karen K. Peters, Edward O. Spain and John A. Lahtinen.

However, the appellate court said that civil contempt was not appropriate since that remedy is available only when the offending conduct prejudices the rights of another party. Here, the court said, Justice Altbach "had no protected privacy right regarding [Kulon's] use of the painting, name or photograph," and therefore could not sustain damages compensable through a civil contempt finding.

Gerald Orseck of Liberty argued for Justice Altbach. Stephen Bergstein of Thornton, Bergstein & Ullrich in Chester appeared for Kulon.

NICE ONE FRANK